Either way, we're not making much progress convincing each other. I don't like RINO's any better than you do, but sometimes it seems that's as far as the electorate is willing to go. You'd have to convince me some of those state losses for Bush wouldn't have happened no matter who was in the governor's mansion.
Even with Reagan, as big as he won, he still could not get both houses behind him. With Bush not standing up to Demo lies in 2000, it was going to be a close race no matter what.
Whatever, within four short weeks we'll know whether (a) TM buys your rationale and stays in the race, (b) if he does, do both he and AS flame down in defeat, or (c) if he does not stay in, can AS win it? There are other physical possibilities, but I don't believe they will come to pass (e.g., TM stays in and either he or AS wins).
If TM stays the course, it's hard for me to believe in anything but a loss for he and AS. That will not be good, no matter how distasteful the opitons were beforehand. If I still lived in California, I would find that hard to stomach. Then I would do again what I have already done three times before, leave the state.
California self destructing racially, economically and spiritually will not be a pretty sight. And it will not be good for the country as a whole either, even if Bush were to be re-elected in '04. It was about there that the Civil War started 140+ years ago.
Well, I'd hope you would do some independent research. Take a look at the trends in other states. It's out there, and it's quite an eye opener. When I started moving away from the leftist brainwashing I got in our public schools, I used to think that a Republican, ANY Republican, would be better than a 'Rat. But when I started to note that certain kinds of Republicans (RINOs) ended up creating more damage than their regular GOP brethren on par with the 'Rats, I took notice and studied up about them. One good place to start is with the MA GOP. Once one of the most preeminent bastions of Republican politics, decades of liberal elitist leadership caused the party to atrophy until it stands in the shape that it's in now. That need not have happened. In many ways, we're seeing that same thing happen to CA, but it's not too late to halt the slide. One important reason to stop people like Ah-nold, who is most certainly a part of the problem that I speak of.
"I don't like RINO's any better than you do, but sometimes it seems that's as far as the electorate is willing to go."
If that's as far as they're willing to go, it just isn't worth fighting for to get those people in. They do absolutely nothing for Conservatism. Never have, never will. They just ruin the reputation of the Republican party amongst the voters of a given state, thinking we're all like that.
"You'd have to convince me some of those state losses for Bush wouldn't have happened no matter who was in the governor's mansion."
Maybe, maybe not. But the body of evidence is there. It's a little too "coincidental" to be dismissed out of hand. I'm going to give you a link later on by a FReeper colleague of mine who produces the hard numbers of the erosion of support for GOP Presidential candidates from the '80s through to '00 in those states that had 'Rat Governors in the '80s which had RINOs by '00.
"Even with Reagan, as big as he won, he still could not get both houses behind him."
Congress you mean ? Well he did have the Senate, but there were dynamics afoot in the House that would make it difficult for the GOP to have won it in the '80s. Analyzing those dynamics would take far too long for this venue, though I'm always willing to discuss it. You'll also note that the side-effect of having elected a 'Rat President in '92 resulted in finally winning back the House. I don't think that would've happened if Bush, Sr. had been reelected. Of course, that's having to choose between two unpleasant scenarios. But sometimes that's all you have to choose from.
"With Bush not standing up to Demo lies in 2000, it was going to be a close race no matter what."
Sure. But with the argument made by many around here that having GOP Governors helps our party during the Presidential contests, having a clear majority of Governorships in '00 didn't help us out at all. Mind you, this doesn't mean I'd like to see a majority of 'Rat Governorships, but that just having an "R" Governor isn't necessarily enough.
"Whatever, within four short weeks we'll know whether (a) TM buys your rationale and stays in the race, (b) if he does, do both he and AS flame down in defeat, or (c) if he does not stay in, can AS win it? There are other physical possibilities, but I don't believe they will come to pass (e.g., TM stays in and either he or AS wins)."
Well, one thing I can guarantee you. If McClintock drops out, Conservatives won't show up to recall Davis, and this election will be rendered moot. The same went for if Riordan had been nominated last year. Conservatives would've sat it out and Davis would've won by an even wider margin.
"If TM stays the course, it's hard for me to believe in anything but a loss for he and AS. That will not be good, no matter how distasteful the opitons were beforehand. If I still lived in California, I would find that hard to stomach. Then I would do again what I have already done three times before, leave the state."
You may not perceive a loss as being good for us or the state in the short run, but I believe that keeping Ah-nold out (whether through TM's election, the ideal scenario, CB's victory or GD's retention), will be better in the long run. The enemy in CA is liberalism, whether it's being peddled by 'Rats or "Republicans." Ah-nold is simply not the solution. If I thought he was for a moment, I'd endorse him (even if I didn't necessarily agree with him on everything), but he set off alarm bells before he even decided to run. It's also really galling that AS is trying to capitalize on the hard work by real Republicans when he himself did NOTHING to help during the all-important signature-collecting phase of the recall. That's far too typical of RINOs lack of teamwork. RINO Governors are usually one-man (or woman) wrecking crews.
"California self destructing racially, economically and spiritually will not be a pretty sight. And it will not be good for the country as a whole either, even if Bush were to be re-elected in '04. It was about there that the Civil War started 140+ years ago."
CA is going to get there if it stays the course with regards to misguided liberal policies. It isn't going to matter whether a "R" or "D" is in charge, because it's the ideological agenda that has to change course. If either the "R" or the "D" refuses to pursue the opposite course, and neither the two leading candidates will, then the destruction will come, and it will deserve it. Only one candidate sees the final train wreck coming and wants to change course with solid ideas and not pay it lip service with simplistic platitudes, and the candidate who wants to make the state great again is Tom McClintock.